About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 20
CSPAN2 20
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
LANGUAGE
English 65
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 65 (some duplicates have been removed)
people. we are not showing this to you for the sake of it. who do you know who making a big difference in your community? you can nominate these heroes and they end up winning. >> making a huge difference in their communities. a good thing to see. we want to wish everybody a wonderful fourth of july weekend. hope you're safe, healthy, happy and you have a little bit of fun. >> you're off? >> i'm off watching the fireworks. >> christine and i will be here on monday. have a fantastic weekend. kyra phillips takes it over now with the "cnn newsroom." >> how about a lot of fun? come on! >> some people have to work so i felt bad! >> happy fourth of july, guys. we all will be celebrating. it's 9:00 a.m. on the east coast and 6:00 a.m. on the west coast. thank you for joining us. >>> witnesses taking the stand in the casey anthony murder trial. the judge says the case could go to the jury this weekend. >>> los alamos national lab closed fifth day as high winds make problems for fire crews. 94,000 acres have burned. lab officials say toxic materials are saving. >>> royal couple wakes
proceeding all through making headlines for wrong reasons but making big headlines nonetheless. >> we are following awe tlel' more on the nfl next week. mark, thanks. >>> the numbers are out. not the poll numbers and not the dow industrial. we are talking about the big number of bucks your presidential candidates are raising to win the white house. jim acosta, who has got the biggest bank? >> reporter: sometimes he's are the numbers that count, kyra, this morning. it looks like at this point, the person who has got the biggest bank right now is mitt romney. we haven't gotten any official totals in right now. yesterday his campaign did confirm that he is expected to bring in between $15 million and $20 million in the first quarter of fund-raising this year. not as much as he raised for the 2008 campaign but, still, way ahead of the rest of the pack. jon huntsman, we can mention, he also has a pretty big fund-raising hall for a guy that not a lot of people know about. $4 million. we should mention half of that, though, is money he kicked in himself. he is part of a very wealthy family t
, and everything, they give big tax breaks for the oil companies. the big manufacturers. they're taking jobs away from us. and why they think it is best to do that. i need an answer to that, because i work 40 years of my life, and now i'm disabled. and now they're talking about cutting everything. i just don't think -- i've even put my life on the line for this country, vietnam. why they think it's the right thing to do. host: thanks for your call. next up, a comment from hewitt, texas. tony, a republican there. good morning. caller: good morning. how's everybody there this morning? host: it's a little hot both temperature-wise and internally i think here. caller: yeah. you know, we deal with a few facts here this morning. that cut, cap and balance that was passed did two things that everybody just is totally bent out of shape about. one of which is that it would raise the debt ceiling, and we would give that community organizer everything he wanted. it also, at the time, would say that the united states would even have a downgrade in its debt rating. and what do we do? well, you got the presiden
the impact. but i'm wondering, two of the candidates will be coming out after this big debate here in washington. does that give an advantage or a disadvantage or is it unclear based on the outcome? >> well, it's unclear based on the outcome certainly. the congresswoman and the congressman have both been very strong in their opposition. >> no compromise. right? >> that will appeal to many people in the base of the party. and i think what you've heard from some of the other candidates is somewhat more equivocal position. though john huntsman this week came out strongly for the boehner plan and said it was the only plan going and that the republicans and everybody ought to get behind it. congresswoman bachmann in particular, i think, has staked out that kind of tea party position. and she'll probably benefit from that. i think the other candidates are trying to get a piece of that, but try to go more broadly. >> i think bachmann and to a certain extent paul also risk some pleasure of backlash, or could in their don't raise the ceiling at all and their positions, playing down is a pot
are loop hoeholing loopholings. >> shouldn't they hold firm, democrats, on this. >> this is a big step forward for john cornyn, one of the big leaders in the -- a leader in the republican senate campaign committee to suggest they're open to the idea if not in the intermediate term closing loopholes is an important first step. it suggests that you can win some of your concessions you want here. if you're going to take drastic steps to reform medicare and medicaid and social security, which i agree we should, you should also hold firm to say that some are going to have their taxes changed. if the middle class and the people below the middle class are going to make sacrifices, and all americans should. people on the upper oechend sho as well. hopefully they'll agree to a corporate tax cut and hopefully doing something incentivize businesses hiring going forward. >> we got some great segment ms ahead. and must reads. the tax issue hurts it economy to deal with this a little bit and get what the democrats want on this. i don't think it does. >> i want patrick to explain this. he never quite
it is that momentous. the flurry of talk last week about going big and swinging for the fences were underscoring the idea of the president and the speaker to persuade the democratic and republican rank- and-file to go for something as big as $4 trillion. it was a long shot to begin with. both sides decided to spend a few days pursuing this long shot and it turns out that speaker behner blinked first. he was the first one to realize publicly that he did not have the votes in his own troops to get this through because it would require too much. host: if the number goes down from $4 trillion, what gets left behind? guest: you go from $4 trillion down to something. the fall back number we think is $2.50 trillion. that is the amount of deficit reduction that would be necessary to get republicans to vote for an equivalent amount of debt ceiling increase. that is what is required to keep the treasury in the flush to get for the next election. that is the number and we know that the vice president had six members of congress and they were pretty close. they were at about $2 trillion. entirely from the s
to lead, they want them to come to washington and take care of the big issues that confront us right now, one is definitely the debt ceiling, the other is the debt. i tell you this. what they want is for us to take care of these big issues in a way that will allow you to work within our physical means, but at the same time provide them with the opportunities that they need for the future. this back and forth, these battling press conferences day to day, the ongoing conversations that they've been having, folks watching this at home have been terribly frustrated. my hope is we can get to a resolution on this very quickly. alisyn: sure, obviously everybody wants a resolution. americans are frustrated: doesn't it put the democrats in a bit of an untenable position to say, we are actually against a balanced budget? >> i think we need to clarify, democrats are not against the balanced budget. they are calling for a shared sacrifice. and the challenge is during the entire conversations about the debt ceiling, the debt and the deficit, what you've seen are democrats putting things on the line,
that she could catch fire. look, when you start this thing, when you win iowa, if you win iowa big, that thing starts rolling through new hampshire and south carolina, it's over in weeks. i agree 100%. >> how was she going in philadelphia suburbs? how is she going to do in the i-4 corridor and in wisconsin? how is she going to do in new mexico, arizona? i would suggest, with swing voters not well at all. >> there's no doubt if you nominate michele bachmann, it's an enormous risk. the only conditions, i think, under which i believe she could win the presidency, if people say, if they did in 1980, i don't care, i'm taking a chance with this guy because what we got we can't stand, you get 9% or 10% unemployment, two more years, this country is ready for a lot of change. more "morning joe" in a moment. with the hotels.com 48-hour sale, the possibilities are endless. interesting... save up to 50% this tuesday and wednesday only. hotels.com. be smart. book smart.  finally, there's a choice for my patients with an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation, or afib, that's not cause
into a big thing. the president is saying, you must have a deal within 24 to 36 hours. mr. president, what is your deal? will you pro offer a deal. write it up, put it on a couple pieces of paper and offer it. instead he's saying, cave. give me all the taxes i want. and give me as little restraint on spending as i want. and don't ever count on me to offer a plan. >> sean: some good news today. i was not that happy with senator mccon fell's proposal. but, today -- today he came out as a co-sponsor in the senate of cut, cap and balance. my take is, strategically this is a bit of a chess game many you are great at strategy. why not the house republicans pass, cut, cap and balance send it to the senate, let's see was? >> we gotta have movement. mcconnell is a crafty inside operator. his first offer is never his final offer. i was looking at not what he was suggesting specifically, but the direction. the direction of it was to change the dynamic. mr. president, where is your plan? his proposal required the president to offer a plan. second, it acknowledged we needed to get this thing done. it c
this economy and yeah, there's a big issue coming up with regards to the debt ceiling. the president ought to be in washington meeting with republicans, meeting with democrats, he shouldn't leave that town until he has an understanding of what it's going to take to get this economy going again and deal with the fiscal crisis that the country faces. but he's here raising money for a campaign. doesn't even have a primary opponent. >> the president was also in pennsylvania, the white house, though, fires back at that particular metal works plant, the allentown metal works that had been struggling for years when the president visited in 2009. president obama saying while i'm working, there will be candidates parading around the country and doing what they do can which is trying to attack. he told supporters in other parts of pennsylvania while mitt romney was there in pennsylvania. >> mitt romney did not mention his rivals. he's clearly taken the stance that i'm the frontrunner, i'm not going to mention tim pawlenty or michelle bachmann. why's he in pennsylvania? not an early primary state, k
statements in that meeting, because we don't know what the details were of his proposal and the so-called big deal, my insistence was consistent with our speaker's, that we not raise taxes. and that's why that construct doesn't work. we don't have the votes on this side of the aisle. i'm not supportive of raising taxes on people who are trying to make it right now and can't. so i would say to the gentleman when he refers to the other groups that have been out there, all of whom he say suggest that somehow we need to raise taxes, what the gentleman's talking about is how are we going to produce more revenues? we believe, mr. speaker, that you produce more revenues by having growth in our economy. we don't believe that you promote growth in the economy by cranking up the government spending machine by taking money from people who eastern it, washing it through washington's bureaucracy, and sending it back out. we don't believe that. we believe that growth is created through investment, through hard work in the private sector. by entrepreneurs, small business men and women, people who want to su
.i. joe," the lakers and the celtics in the championship. apple wuss big, then it -- was big, then it went away for a while, then it was back again. so it should be obvious that the 1980s is back, and for various reasons i argue in the book, it is back. and i don't think it's just because of the nostalgia factor although that's certainly a factor. also there's some coincidences. i had mentioned on my radio show a couple days ago that the weird coincidence, although you may see it not just as a coincidence, that 25 years ago almost to the exact week and, certainly, to the exact month the united states military was bombing libya, and the world was wrapped with the detention about a nuclear meltdown at chernobyl. those two things happened almost exactly 25 years ago to the month. so as much of this is pop culture, some of it is very, very real. and what i argue in the book is that the popular culture of the 1980s, the iconography of the 1980s in many ways has inspired the way we hook at real world -- look at real world events and how real world, i guess you would call them actors, behave toda
the battle on a short term debt ceiling because we can't put together a big one in one week's time. and you noticed the president had no statement in there, "i will veto a short-term debt ceiling." what happened to that? >> he didn't have that. i was wondering if you would allow if you ear in the president's position or advisor, you advised many presidents before. would you not tell him to stand up to his opponents? >> i would not tell the president of the united states to veto a short term debt ceiling. if, as a result, i'm going to throw my country into default over what? the president is willing to accept a clean debt ceiling with nothing. now boehner is going to give a debt ceiling with $1 trillion in cuts. why would he reject the good because it's not the best? >> my advice -- i think, pat, we've had this discussion on the show. pat and i sparred a bit in the last two weeks. i think pat, unfortunately, for the democrats standpoint is right. i don't mean you're right. you're more right this morning than wrong. if the president has to accept a short term plan which is looking more and mo
president the number doubled again. he raised taxes and left office with a budget surplus almost as big as the debt that he inherited. george w. bush took that tax cut again it was a whopping half a million dollar debt. now the number was seven times higher under president clinton. there is new pressure from wall street now, today moodys investors service branch to downgrade the countries it rating. they say they will review the aaa bond rating because the white house and congress are running out of time to raise the nation's 14 trillion dollar borrowing limit. >> a look at our or extended forecast, a warmup into next week i will have details coming up in the next few minutes. >> taking a live look outside this afternoon from our roof camera over downtown san to destroy very different picture than what we saw yesterday starting to see a little sunshine this afternoon, the fog will return, we will see drizzle especially close to the coastline. pettifog will stick with us in the later afternoon hours temperatures will cool a little more. the winds will be just as breezy this afternoon t
is your chance to talk back on one of the big stories of the day. today's question is what would you tell congress to do about the debt limit? carol costello is joining us from washington. carol, i bet you're going to get a lot of folks weighing in on this one. >> i urge all of our facebook friends to keep it clean. that's my only request today. what is happening in washington is political gamesmanship at its worse. it's ugly and more than a little scary. the united states has never gone into default because past administrations and lawmakers have compromised. cnn contributor john avalon says lawmakers have raised the debt ceiling 77 times including 8 tooils times under ronald reagan and back in the day politicians weren't quite so macho. many insist on standing on principal even though most americans stand on the side of good old fashioned compromise. two-thirds of americans want the president and republicans to compromise, rather than stand up for their beliefs to get things done. wow. a break from part is anship. perhaps the happiest outcome of the president's speech last night was whe
. >> whether you get the big or not, you know this won't pass the senate. >> i don't know if it will or won't. >> do you believe we should raise the ceiling? yes or no. >> if the senate is responsibility, then cut, cap and balance will pass. >> let me ask you a question -- do you agree with the president that we need to raise the ceiling, president obama? >> i will vote to raise the debt ceiling if we address the long-term issue of federal insolvency caused by -- if we do not address the long-term issue, the risk associated with piling on higher and higher debt loads, if we don't address that, then, no, sir, i will not vote for the debt ceiling. >> ronald railinger, who was someone i'm sure you admire, let me show you what he said about the dead ceiling, maybe you should tell your colleagues this. >> i'm familiar with this quote. >> congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. this brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds, those who rely on associate security and vet ran benefits. the united states has a special responsi
to demand, you are contributing more to this problem or as much to this problem of the big deficit. >> government cannot create wealth. come on. we have come out three years where government by spending massive amounts it could create jobs and create wealth and you've seen that. >> history is full of examples. reagan saw tax cuts and growing economy. clinton years saw tax hikes and a growing economy. but don't confuse with causation it's cumulation of trillions of goods, services and money. no one person, no president and no economist can predict with certainty where a tax policy leads. wrong predictions are a foundation of economic study. >> the size of economics is looking what the unintended consequences. >> one unintended consequence is tax on luxury goods in the early 1990s. the law imposed extra taxes on jewelry of $10,000 of cars of over $30,000 and boats of over $100,000. it was seen as a way of raising revenue by targeting people that could most afford it, the wealthy. the pleasure boat industry laid off 19,000 blue collar workers. so economists offer answers but few guara
, this is a debate about our economy, and frankly is a big debate about the future of our country. until recently, the president was demanding that the congress increased the debt limit with no strings attached. as a matter of fact, the treasury secretary sent me a letter two days after we were sworn in demanding that we give him a clean increase in the debt limit. i responded and told the treasury secretary at the american people would not tolerate a clean increase in the debt ceiling unless there was serious spending cuts attached and will reform in the way we spent the american people's money. i went to new york city in may and gave a speech to the new york economic club where i outlined the challenges we were facing and i made it clear that we would not increase the debt limit for the cuts that exceeded that increase in the debt limit and that there would be no new taxes and that there would be serious spending reforms put in place. it is time to get serious. i'm confident that the leaders here in the congress can act, the white house will give serious, we will. >> your own aides say that the
for the tabloids. host: what about the broadsheets? guest: it is known occasionally. there was a big scandal about mp's expenses last year, which came from information that is the voice of -- information that is the will serve and got on a computer disk. my newspaper paid for that because they thought it was in the public interest. that is a rare instance of a broadsheet paper paying for information. for the tabloids, we call it checkbook journalism. salacious information about a night out on the town with a celebrity or pop star or encounters with celebrities. that culture has grown and become more insidious over the past 20 or 30 years. host: how would you describe, to help put it in perspective -- by the way, we will put the numbers on the screen as we continue this conversation about the phone hacking investigation in the u.k. prime minister cameron spoke this morning at a problem about it and we carry that live on c- span -- spoke this morning in parliament about it and we carry that live on c-span2. we carry rupert murdoch and rebekah brooks yesterday and we will speak about that. how do you
court term began, two of the big lens or person in the cases come if you protest a chemist vendor versus phelps in the videogame case from which ended at being caught brown v. entertainment software association. both of those cases brought with them the chance to explore first amendment issues in the internet era and they ended up really not doing that at all. the funeral case had a component to it involving an online screed against their parents of corporal snyder, which the court completely declined to address it all and instead look at it as a type of dinner plates. the videogame case again had the potential of looking at whether this new medium has something different than the other new media that arose over the centuries, but instead decided it did not impose either unanimous word you unanimous holdings getting to that resold. we have as well i suppose we should be grateful for arizona's contribution to the supreme court docket with the tuition tax credit case in the clean elections case which was perhaps again i say the clean elections case the perhaps most predictable outcome, the
it extreme, radical. imagine that. only a big spending washington liberal could think it would be radical to require washington to start living within its means like families have been doing for years. and so frankly american families would say it's about time, welcome to the party. and instead some people think you can just live in this fantasy land where you can keep tax, taxing, spending, borrowing money from china and act like the day of wreckening never is never going to come and kick the -- wrenging is never going to come and kick the can down the road. it's time to say enough is new. we're going to deal with our problems nod. we're going to set priorities today and do the tough things people sent us to do and that means cutting, capping and balancing the federal budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. without objection, the gentleman from maryland is back and is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. again, the choice is not whether we put in place a plan to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. the issue is how we do that.
industries a mindless handout. the big oil companies getting a handout. it's much easier to retain that benefit and it's very difficult to save medicare. it's a simple majority that can end medicare. many of us go home every week, others as frequently as they can because of the distance they have to travel to get to their districts, and we're greeted by signs like this. hands off my medicare. and it's no wonder because what we've seen yesterday was the third attempt in this few months of the 112th congress, to end medicare. three votes, one with a republican study committee, one with the ryan plan, the path to prosperity which we have redesignated the road to ruin and yesterday with the cut, slash, and burn attempt. i won't get into the nomenclature because it's inappropriate and misrepresenting what would really happen. yesterday we had a vote on this floor to make it easy to end medicare and easy to maintain handouts to the oil company. when we look at the dollars that are saved by ending medicare, we see where they somehow are transitioned over to tax cuts that are maintained fo
a big deal, $4 trillion, or whether we're going to have a smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether or not we're going to have a fair deal, a deficit-reduction package which represents the interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or whether we're going to have a deficit reductio-reduction packh ends up reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country who are do phenomenally well and the largest corporations in this country who, in many instances, are making record-breaking profits. that's really what the debate is about. now, the republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear and is consistent with their right-wing ideology. despite the fact that our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars unpaid for, huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of wall street and the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession. our republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this country are becoming much richer, wh
that it isn't that big of a deal have made themselves look pri instrahan gent. if we do go to doomsday on this, the hope is people that get blamed will be the republicans. >> that's option 2. that's default. i've given you two options. >> it's not default if we don't stop sending out the checks. if we keep sending out the checks, it's not default. we didn't default in '95. we just got near to it. >> does the president then say, okay, i'll agree to the republican plan? what's the third option besides default and defeat? how does he force his point of view, which is a reasonable balance, two or three to one, spending cuts to revenue hikes. >> i have no idea. i should say they're talking four or five to one. >> how do we get to there then? >> he can't. on his own we simply cannot. we live in a country, the constitution, the constitution has ultimate power. a lot of people think he could ignore them by asserting constitutional authority, but that is really dependent on the supreme court. >> am i right that it depends on one man, john boehner, speaker of the house, will have to deliver the votes he
]. >> that is affirmative, atlantis. >> copy. >> one of the other big-ticket items for atlantis's crew will be the deployment of the dish-shaped ku band antenna over the starboard, forward sill of the payload bay. >> have we missed anything? >> okay. we'll take a look. >> chris ferguson asking capcom barry wilmore to make sure the team here is looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't miss anything in the post-insertion checklist. again the ku band antenna will be deployed soon. once the payload bay doors are open, that will enable a high data rate telemetry and down link television capability from the shuttle. >> atlantis, block three does look good to us. nice work. [no audio] [no audio] >> the electrical systems officer here in mission control reports that the crew has begun the process of turning on the lights in the payload bay. that in advance of the operation of the systems by rex walheim and chris ferguson to actually open the doors, deploy the radiators, and setting the stage for a go for on-orbit operations. atlantis crossing the pacific at an altitude of 143 by 97
they did it come after they lived up to their end of the bargain. you know, these big oil companies, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, defense spending, wall street banks, they are getting great big everything else, and i don't see the job creation. you know, unemployment is obviously out of control now even from what the reporting, it's not to mention the fact that, you know, they are only counting the people that are actively seeking employment and not the people that have given up all hope. it's like the voters in this country don't even seem to count any more. if you had cathy mcmorris rogers mention reform in the way we spend money on, you know, to paraphrase. we need reform and the election campaigns. you know, where are these candidates getting their money? and how much do they get? because those are the people that seem to be represented. it's like the voters aren't represented any more. >> thanks for the views. one more call police and from washington on the democrats' line. >> caller: hi, how're you doing. i am calling about the fact that under this present plan that t
in transforming themselves, she's one of the big reasons why. please help me in welcoming to the stage, liz schuller. [applause] >> thank you. all right. thank you, barry, for the introduction. and i'd like to think raj for raising the bar. thanks a lot for the rest of us and not those creative messaging tools that we all need to address inequality. i wish i would have heard her before my speech. so why am i here as part of this panel? the whole point of what i want to talk to you today is the power of collective action and how it could counter the rise in inequality and how unions fit into that picture. now, when i think about inequality, especially, as of late, i think about those teachers in wisconsin, construction workers in ohio, nurses in new hampshire, who have been locked out and denied their basic rights to collective bargaining. we've seen what it looks like the state capital in wisconsin and we show you now what's happening in office buildings all across this country. ♪ >> here's to america's workers. when the economy was down, they sacrificed. during tough times when executive
saying, only a long-term option here? >> the president believes that we have to think big and act big, because as i mentioned before, there have been events and decisions that have led us to this point and they include the terrible recession, the worst since the great depression we went through. the fact that because congress wouldn't act, he apointed the commission and they delivered a report. we have the outside report. and we have the president's framework he put forward and the republican budget that passed the house, all of which describe a problem and a solution in generally the same terms. the big exception is three to one, they propose solutions that demand a balanced approach which the president supports. this is not the kind of situation that comes around very frequently and the president believes that it is worth the inevitable political difficulty making tough choices creates to get this done for the american people, for the american economy. so he does not share the view, does not believe it is wise to pursue a short-term solution that essentially would be kicking the can
, vote for this amendment. mr. president, how big is this scheme? well, here's what our own permanent subcommittee on investigations has told us: "experts have estimated that the total loss to the treasury from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per year, including $40 billion to $70 billion from individuals and another $30 billion from corporations engaging in offshore tax evasion. abusive tax shelters add tens of billions of dollars more." mr. president, you want to lock in these abuses? you prefer to pay more in taxes yourself so that people can engage in these scams? vote for this amendment. vote for the legislation that's before us. vote for what is on the floor because you'll protect them forever more. mr. president, i end as i began. this is perhaps the most ill-conceived, ill-considered, internally inconsistent legislation that i have ever seen in my 25 years in the united states senate. i hope my colleagues have the wisdom to vote "no." i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i just would lik
forward to reduce the deficit in a big way modeled after these bipartisan commissions, where there's been pretty good bipartisan agreeme agreement. but efforts to forge a grand compromise, bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion, have been abandoned by republican leaders over and over. i -- i have not supported every detail in these grand compromise efforts. i don't want to do anything to undermine medicare or social security or medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs that millions of ohioans depend on, for middletown to ashtaboula to toledo and gallipolis. that's because i wanted a more balanced approach. i know the presiding officer did too. but as days and weeks and weeks and months go by, we're now only days away from default. we're simply running out of time. that's what the senate bill is about, protecting us from default. the spirit of continued compromise again, the majority leader has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. it's truly a compromise because it meets the republicans' main criteria, it contains spending cuts to rou
social security, you don't get a penny of it. every penny of that goes into the big pot and it's distributed to everyone else. anybody who dies to young, all of their money has been wasted. it is just going into the government pot. the second thing you have to know, is if you save up to much, when you start receiving it, you get taxed on it again. if you get taxed on social security when you are your money what you are working and then after you start receiving it, if you save up to much because you were worried about it, you get taxed on it again. it gets added to whatever income you have from your savings. host: do you think private savings accounts, that your social security should be yours when you pay in, you should be booked to get or keep or transfer? caller: i certainly do. that is why i voted for president bush to the second time around. i did not agree with him for very much but i agree with him on that point. people should have their names on their accounts and what ever they put into it should belong to them. so even if they die when their 50, that money goes to the
is not for light or transient reasons. it's a big, big deal when the united states government has been for months and will continue to be borrowing about 40% of every dollar we spend, running up the largest deficits the nation has ever seen. and so what the law says, that -- the law and the united states code says you should have a budget. and when you set a budget, you take all of the bills that are out there and tell them how much money they have to spend so your total amount of money at the end does not exceed a dangerous level for the c. that's whac -- for the country. that's what a budget does. and so we're going to seek and repeatedly call to this senate's attention that we got the cart before the horse. we're spending money without a budget and we're going to have to have a budget, else we are not in control of our spending. and once you have a budget, it takes 60 votes to violate the budget. you can kind of stick to it if you make up your mind to do so. and we don't have to violate it and burst the budget. so that's -- that's what we're talking about today and it's a matter of great serio
that was a big mistake. >> i certainly would. >> politically and. >> and detaching the dollar from the gold standard. >> we're all foreign policy guys. you domestic guys react later. >> the second was that he didn't mine high fong and do more intense bombing of north vietnam earlier in 1969 rather than when he did it after the trip to china and before the trip to the soviet union. we forget that the trip to the soviet union was the first trip by an american president to the soviet union and he did it against the backdrop of very strong military attacks on north vietnam that he later regret he had done earlier. my question is, if he had done it earlier, would it have been possible to do it earlier with respect to his thinking about going to china? would it have been possible to go to china against that? and with respect to the soviet union, would he have been able to do it without having some violent response from them. after the trip to china, they were unnerved by that and the very fact that the trip was pulled off after that was seen, as you can imagine how the north vietnamese held about
: we have to look at the overall big picture. there are going to be times -- you can only spend more than you make for so long and it catches up to you and that is what is happening right now the bank there going to be situations, i imagine, with the federal government has to take out loans and borrow money. but this has been going on for years and years and years. and you cannot continue to do this. if we do not get our fiscal house in order, get our credit -- that our creditors will take control and do it for us. i am not sure that we want that. host: we of gone from a trillion dollar debt to $14 trillion, but is there good debt for the government? someone argues that student loans and mortgages are good debt, and bad debt would be loans for vacations or fancy cars. guest: i do not think any debt is good. it is probably a more acceptable form of debt. but again, i say that there are probably going to be instances, but the problem is when it becomes everything that you -- when you have so much debt that it is overwhelming to everything else, when you have more debt if you can pay. a
. >> the problem with a mini deal is we have a maxi problem. and the big problems aren't going to go away if you cut a mini deal. it just delays the moment of truth. i would say better noun then, but if we can't we'll take the savings we can get now and relitigate this as we get closer to the election. >> reporter: he also talked about concerns that people have that the president will bypass congress all together and just raise the debt level on his own. we'll have a fair & balanced debate on why some democrats say that may be their best option. that is coming up. also republicans who are running for president being asked to sign a strict commitment to reducing our debt. this is called the cut, cap and balance pledge, and those who don't sign their names are feeling the heat. doug mcelway is live in washington with 0 more on that. >> reporter: you're going to be hearing a lot about this plan to cut, cap and balance as the senate resumes its work tomorrow after the july 4th holiday. you'll probably hear a lot about it as the republican primary season heats up as well. some pundits say it may prov
, but it means, mr. president, that we can't be raising taxes on the job creators, and there is a big debate right now about how do we get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. i would submit to my colleagues that the real issue here is spending. if you go back to the foundation of our country, the year 1800, we were only spending 2% of our entire economic output on the government, the federal government. this year we're going to spend 24% to 25%. the historical average over the past 40 years is about 20.6%. we are dramatically higher in terms of what we are spending on our federal government as a percentage of our entire economy. to me, clearly, we don't have a revenue issue here in washington. we have a spending issue. which would suggest that we ought to get after spending, after federal spending, particularly spending that is -- is duplicative, redundant, there are so many things in the federal government that we spend money on that we need to get that waste and that -- and all those types of wasteful spending out of our spending here in washington, d.c., but we also have to focus on those
that is to come together in a bipartisan way around a big deal, around $4 trillion in savings at least. the senator from colorado went in some detail into the bipartisan debt and deficit commission. chaired bier sin bowles and alan simpson, and the 11 members of that commission, ems of members of this body currently serving senators, republican and democrat, who came together around a plan that would make $4 trillion in savings over the next decade. i think we should do no less than that. and i think the plan that we should be working on in detail now should include all four major areas where we have to have savings. reductions in discretionary domestic spending, reform to our entitlement programs, reductions in pentagon spending, and increases in federal revenue through tax reform. all four of these have to be on the table. in my view, our values ask no less than that. as we work through a recovery, we need to continue to invest in education, in infrastructure, in innovation, but we also need to responsibly put together a bipartisan path that will take on the sacred cows of this insti
. there was a big issue at the end of the last congress that threatened a meltdown over whether or not we were going to extend the package of tax cuts. then we have the cr, threatening to shut down of the government. now we are having a high-stakes game of chicken that could have significant implications for the global economy as well as devastation for what we face to going forward. and then you know what? we will be right back with that with the budget, not once but twice, before the election. most in the house want to see something that is more sustainable and allows us to get back to the business of helping all americans get back to work, rebuilding the country, and dealing with long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes to deal with theoretical issues with the budget. host: to be clear, if the reid proposal could come before the house, would you vote for it? guest: i have not seen it. i had a dinner with a friend of mine in the senate last night who says that they are interested in the details. they have not seen the details yet. i am not going to commit to something that no one i know ha
, was part of another big debate over federal spending. and out of that came the graham-hollings legislation. we talked to him on camera. here's just a clip of his comments on washington today. >> nothing gets done. the atmosphere is the game. the game is re-election. you've got to get the money for re-election. in other words in 1998, 12 years ago, i had to spend -- i had to raise, excuse me, $8.5 million. now, $8.5 million is $30,000 every week, each week for six years. it's not just raising money the year ahead. it's raising it for all six years. and you're raising it not only for yourself because your colleagues will help you, the committees will want to keep that seat. so when your time is up. so you are always out there raising money. and the name of the game is make no mistake, play the fence when you get back to washington. got no idea of paying the bill. they haven't paid the bill for 10 years. host: fritz hollings will be 90 later this year. expressing his frustration. he's part of the many voices we will include in our "charleston weekend" on "book tv" and "american history tv." a
ceiling and pass that through the house. by 5, 6, 7 months depending how big the package is the bigger, the better. send it to the senate. the senate has to take it up they will have to pass it and the president will have to sign it. this will give us more time to work the problem and give a revenue neutral tax reform that lowers rates and cleans out a lot of the trash in the code. >> i am angry with republicans in this sense. we don't appear to have their act together. the president is putting his plan in writing on the table. this is frustrating to me. on the very day the house is voting on real substantive kutsz dealing with the foundational issues of our debt problem that would help bring recovery into play why did they give the president the ability to run out with a gang of 6? haehn hang on a second we have a plan and distract the country with what i thought they were focused on democrats were opposing it and we have to stop the measure with the o'connell issue. it's like they are negotiating with themselves and the president hasn't put up a plan. >> one of the members of the gan
speaker boehner has been very sincere about trying to do something big. i think that he would like to do something big. his politics within his caucus are very difficult. you're right. this is part of the problem with a political process where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections were held the political game when we are in the position to try to do something hard. we haven't always laid the groundwork for it, and i think that it's going to take some work on his side but it's also going to take work on our side in order to get this done. the vast majority of democrats on capitol hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements and would prefer frankly not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems and i'm sympathetic to their concerns because they are looking looking after folks hurting and vulnerable and there are families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs, and what i tried to explain to them is number one, if you look at the numbers, and medicare in particular will run out of money and we w
nothing would do. now, after we have restored some confidence here by this big step of doing nothing, we could do another half of nothing and put people back to work. now, how could we do half of nothing and put people back to work? president obama has adopted this cockamamie republican idea of a social security tax holiday putting people to work. i know a lot of families that could use an extra 20 bucks a week, but them spending 20 bucks a week for food on the tape table, doesn't put people back to work. if you are unemployed, you don't get the 20 bucks. we are borrowing $120 billion to do that under the guise this is creating jobs. and the president last night mentioned he wants to create jobs. guess what? it's not working. we do half a nothing. we allow the social security tax holiday to expire. doesn't create any jobs. we don't borrow the $110 billion from china to put in the social security trust fund. instead, we borrow $110 billion to put people back to work in private sector jobs. we resolve to begin to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. $110 billion applied to the 150,000 bri
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 65 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)